An investigation of the level of burnout and resilience among hospital based nurse managers after COVID 19 - A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.

AIM: We aim to investigate burnout and resilience among hospital based nurse managers post COVID-19 in order to suggest appropriate person-centred leadership support. BACKGROUND: Nurse leaders are central to establishing safe and caring environments for patients and staff. Therefore, their own wellbeing is crucial, particular in times of crisis where they must provide support and guidance. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire included ward managers. Data collected were burnout inventory, brief resilience score and demographic data. To analyse data, we used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 51.2% answered the questionnaire. Of those, 32.3% displayed symptoms of high personal burnout and 29% of work-related burnout. 6.5% showed signs of high employee-related burnout. As a group, ward managers showed moderate to high resilience. CONCLUSION: Personal and work-related burnout was highly prevalent among ward managers. Results suggest that the cause of their burnout symptoms cannot be attributed to low individual resilience. We thus suggest a shift in focus from strengthening individual leadership resilience to the establishment of healthful and resilient cultures in accordance with person-centred leadership. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Person-centred leadership has the potential to shift the focus from the resilience of individual leaders to that of collective responsibility for creating a healthful and resilient culture.

A qualitative evaluation of participants' experiences of using co-design to develop a collective leadership educational intervention for health-care teams.

INTRODUCTION: Co-design involves stakeholders as design partners to ensure a better fit to user needs. Many benefits of involving stakeholders in design processes have been proposed; however, few studies have evaluated participants' experience of co-design in the development of educational interventions. As part of a larger study, health-care professionals, researchers and patients co-designed a collective leadership intervention for health-care teams. This study evaluated their experiences of the co-design process. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals (n = 10) who took part in the co-design workshops. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified from the data: (a) Managing expectations in an open-ended process; (b) Establishing a positive team climate; (c) Focusing on frustrations-challenging but informative; and (d) Achieving a genuine co-design partnership. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a positive team climate is essential to the co-design process. Organizers should focus on building strong working relationships from the beginning to enable open discussion. Organizers of co-design should be conscious of establishing and maintaining a genuine partnership where participants are involved as equal partners and co-creators. This can be done through the continuous use of feedback to allow participants to influence the workshop directions, and through limiting researcher domination. Lastly, co-design can be daunting, but organizers can positively impact participants' experience by acknowledging the emergent nature of the process in order to reduce participant apprehension, thereby limiting the barriers to participation.